Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conceptualizing
E T&P Corporate
Entrepreneurship
Strategy
R. Duane Ireland
Jeffrey G. Covin
Donald F. Kuratko
Introduction
Conditions in the global business environment demand that established firms adopt
entrepreneurial strategies (e.g., McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Morris, Kuratko, & Covin,
2008) as a path to success. According to Cooper, Markman, and Niss (2000, p. 116), for
example, “entrepreneurial strategies suggest ways to revitalize existing organizations and
make them more innovative.” As Amit, Brigham, and Markman (2000) observed, “entre-
preneurial strategies allow people to be innovative, creative, and responsible for decisions
that they make” (quoted in Meyer & Heppard, 2000, p. 10). From the perspective of
organizational strategy, this outcome may be highly desirable. The reason for this is that
diffusing strategic capabilities throughout firms and empowering individuals to leverage
them is foundational to successfully developing and implementing strategies (Liedtka &
Rosenblum, 1996). By pursuing entrepreneurial strategies, firms place themselves
in positions to regularly and systematically recognize and exploit entrepreneurial
Please send correspondence to: R. Duane Ireland, tel.: (979) 862-3963; e-mail: direland@mays.tamu.edu, to
Jeffrey G. Covin at covin@indiana.edu, and to Donald F. Kuratko at dkuratko@indiana.edu.
January, 2009 19
opportunities (Eisenhardt, Brown, & Neck, 2000). In short, what entrepreneurial strategy
does or can do for a firm has been a subject of much discussion (Ireland, Hitt, Camp, &
Sexton, 2001; Kuratko, Ireland, Covin, & Hornsby, 2005).
Zahra, Jennings, and Kuratko’s (1999) review of the corporate entrepreneurship (CE)
literature concluded with the observation that a need exists to explore different concep-
tualizations of firm-level entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial strategy is arguably a core
construct within the CE literature and a specific manifestation of firm-level entrepreneur-
ship. Cooper et al. (2000, p. 120) asserted that “entrepreneurial strategy has begun to be
viewed as a potential source of firms’ competitive advantage, a way in which established
firms can develop capabilities that are central to their continuing success.”
In spite of its potential importance, a precise specification of what entrepreneurial
strategy is has been elusive for scholars. Hitt stated, “It is difficult to provide a precise
definition of entrepreneurial strategy . . .” (quoted in Meyer & Heppard, 2000, p. 5).
Likewise, Eisenhardt commented, “The term entrepreneurial strategy may signal too
many different things to people, and trying to label strategies as entrepreneurial can be
awkward” (quoted in Meyer & Heppard, 2000, p. 6).
A fair amount of evidence supports Eisenhardt’s claim. For example, Amit et al.
(2000) defined entrepreneurial strategy as a largely internal, organizational phenomenon:
“When we discuss entrepreneurial strategies, we are focusing primarily on the internal
organization of the firm rather than on the more complex notion of dynamic competitive
strategies” (quoted in Meyer & Heppard, 2000, p. 9). By contrast, Morris et al. (2008,
p. 198) state the following: “. . . the application of entrepreneurial thinking to the firm’s
core strategy is primarily dealing with the following external questions. Where are the
unfulfilled spaces in the marketplace? How can the firm differentiate itself on a sustained
basis? Where can we lead the customer?”
To some, such as Russell and Russell (1992, p. 640), entrepreneurial strategy is a
possible element of the larger corporate strategy: “. . . an entrepreneurial strategy involves
a persistent, organizationally sanctioned pattern of innovation-related activities and
resource allocations that compose one component of the firm’s comprehensive corporate
strategy.” To others, such as Barney (quoted in Meyer & Heppard, 2000, p. 11), “If you
define entrepreneurship as the process of creating economic rents, then entrepreneurial
strategy and entrepreneurship are essentially synonymous. Any rent-generating strategy is
entrepreneurial.” Some scholars use the term entrepreneurial strategy to refer to a specific
strategy (e.g., Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). Others (e.g., Drucker, 1985; Johnson & Van de
Ven, 2002; Kazanjian, Drazin, & Glynn, 2002; Murray, 1984) conceive of entrepreneurial
strategy as being manifested in many forms. A net effect of the disparate ways in which
entrepreneurial strategy has been depicted in the literature is the failure of this literature
to produce satisfyingly cumulative knowledge on the topic. Moreover, those who might
seek to enact entrepreneurial strategies in their firms are virtually guaranteed to be
confused by the array of ideas in the literature.
Before examining its component parts, we think it is important to place our model
contextually. In this regard, we can note that we do not seek to use this model to represent
how entrepreneurship commonly intervenes or interfaces with an organization’s strategic
processes. As Burgelman (1983) cogently argued, entrepreneurial initiatives commonly
occur as unplanned by-products of an organization’s deliberate and spontaneous actions.
Thus, the occurrence of autonomous entrepreneurial actions within a firm’s strategic
processes or the validation of such initiatives through those processes does not necessarily
signify the presence of a CE strategy. Rather, consistent with the strategic entrepreneur-
ship concept (Ireland & Webb, 2007b; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003), we argue that CE
strategy implies that a firm’s strategic intent (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989) is to continuously
Sharma and Chrisman (1999, p. 18) define CE as “the process whereby an individual or
a group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organi-
zation or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization.” Various models of CE
appear in the scholarly literature. The proposed model of CE strategy is distinct from prior
models of entrepreneurial phenomena in established organizations in four important
aspects—the behavioral dimension, the locus of entrepreneurship, the philosophical justi-
fication, and CE as a unique and identifiable strategy. We briefly consider nine prior
models.2 These models are summarized in Table 1. They are reviewed on the basis of five
criteria—the focal entrepreneurial phenomenon, the locus of entrepreneurship, the
1. Entrepreneurial opportunities can be either discovered or created (Alvarez & Barney, 2005, 2008; Lumpkin
& Lichtenstein, 2005). In the current manuscript, opportunity recognition is conceived of as the larger
entrepreneurial process within which both opportunity discovery and opportunity creation occur.
2. Additional models of CE-related phenomena can be found throughout the entrepreneurship and strategy
literatures. Examples include those of Antoncic (2003), Block and MacMillan (1993), Floyd and Wooldridge
(1999), Hayton (2005), Ireland et al. (2003), Morris et al. (2008), and Sathe (2003). The specific models
reviewed herein are representative of the diverse foci of CE models appearing in the literature. Two of the
models discussed here—those of Covin and Slevin (1991) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996)—are reviewed in
detail because of their relatively greater overall similarity and relevance to the specific focus of the proposed
CE strategy model.
January, 2009 21
22
Table 1
Model characteristics
Burgelman (1983) ICV Corporate management, new venture Corporate strategy can be extended to Structural context—organizational and Corporate strategy changes
division management, group accommodate new business activities administrative mechanisms used
leader/venture manager resulting from ICV implement the current corporate strategy
Covin and Slevin (1991) EO Not specified Reciprocal relationship between Firm performance, strategic variables, Firm performance, strategic variables,
EO and strategy environmental variables, managerial and environmental variables, managerial
organizational variables and organizational variables
Dess et al. (2003) Sustained regeneration, organizational Not specified Not specified Prior organizational knowledge Acquisitive and experimental
rejuvenation, strategic renewal, organizational learning
domain redefinition
Floyd and Lane (2000) Strategic renewal (SR) Top-, middle-, and operating-level SR process leads to changes in strategy Macroenvironment, competitive Macroenvironment, competitive
managers environment, organizational control environment, organizational control
systems systems
Guth and Ginsberg (1990) ICV and SR Not specified Strategy directly affects ICV and SR Environmental variables, strategic leaders, Firm performance
organization conduct/form variables,
firm performance
Hornsby et al. (1993) Individual-level entrepreneurial Individuals/organizational members Not specified Organizational characteristics, individual Business/feasibility planning
behavior characteristics, precipitating event
Kuratko et al. (2004) Individual-level entrepreneurial Individuals/organizational members Individual-level entrepreneurial behavior Organizational antecedents—rewards, Intrinsic and extrinsic individual-level
behavior affects and is affected by strategy, both management support, resources, outcomes, financial and behavioral
indirectly (organization is mediator) organizational boundaries, work organizational-level outcomes
discretion/autonomy
Kuratko, Ireland, et al. Individual-level entrepreneurial Middle-level managers Not specified Organizational antecedents—management Various possible individual- and
(2005) behavior support, work discretion/autonomy, organizational-level outcomes
rewards/reinforcements, time
availability, organizational boundaries
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) EO Not specified Strategy and EO are distinct, Not specified Firm performance
non-causally related phenomena
ICV, Internal corporate venturing; EO, entrepreneurial orientation; SR, strategic renewal.
January, 2009 23
Covin and Slevin’s (1991) and Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) models have the great-
est similarity to the one we present in this paper. These authors modeled the antecedents
and/or consequences of the organizational-level phenomenon of entrepreneurial orien-
tation (EO), defined by Lumpkin and Dess (p. 136) as “the processes, practices, and
decision-making activities that lead to new entry.” The current model of a CE strategy
differs from these two commonly cited models of EO in four important ways—(1) by
conceptualizing EO as an organizational state or quality, (2) by specifying organiza-
tional locations from which entrepreneurial behavior and processes may emerge,
(3) by explicitly specifying a philosophical component of a CE strategy, and (4) by
specifying that organizations can pursue entrepreneurship as a separate and identifiable
strategy.
First, EO is an organizational state or quality that is defined in terms of several
behavioral dimensions. Based on the pioneering work of Miller (1983), Covin and Slevin
(1991) defined EO as implying the presence of organizational behavior reflecting risk-
taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness. Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) model of EO adds
competitive aggressiveness and autonomy to this list of attributes. By contrast, the CE
strategy model shown in Figure 1 specifies not what the behavioral dimensions of EO are,
but how the organizational state or quality that is EO is manifested across the organiza-
tion by implementing a particular strategy. As such, an EO is subsumed within our
model of CE strategy. However, unlike the current CE strategy model, existing
EO models do not specify where to look for evidence of entrepreneurship within the
organization.
Second, and similar to the preceding point, existing EO models identify no specific
locus or loci of entrepreneurship. In particular, the question of where within the
Figure 1
Level of
Analysis
External Environmental Pro-Entrepreneurship
Conditions Organizational
Architecture
Competitive Strategic
The • Competitive intensity
Capability Repositioning
Organization • Technological change • Structure
• Product-market • Culture
fragmentation • Resources/capabilities
• Product-market • Reward systems
emergence
Entrepreneurial
Top-Level
Strategic
Managers
Vision
Individual
Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial
Cognitions Processes & Behavior
Organizational
Members Entrepreneurial… • Opportunity
• Beliefs recognition
• Attitudes • Opportunity
• Values exploitation
January, 2009 25
used to assure congruence between perspective (the vision) and pattern (the consistent
behaviors). In slightly different words, the pro-entrepreneurship organizational architec-
ture shown in Figure 1 is a recursive path through which entrepreneurial vision and
behaviors interact to create a CE strategy. In addition, the antecedents of CE strategy (i.e.,
individual entrepreneurial cognitions of the organization’s members and external envi-
ronmental conditions that invite entrepreneurial activity) and the outcomes of CE strategy
(i.e., organizational outcomes resulting from entrepreneurial actions, including the devel-
opment of competitive capability and strategic repositioning) are shown in the model.
The Antecedents
January, 2009 27
External Environmental Conditions to Entrepreneurial Strategic Vision
Certain increasingly common environmental conditions can precipitate the perceived
need for a CE strategy. Zahra (1991) argued that greater amounts of environmental hostility,
dynamism, and heterogeneity call for a CE strategy. Similarly, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
suggested that firms facing rapidly changing, fast-paced competitive environments might
be best served by implementing a CE strategy. The list of environmental conditions that can
trigger entrepreneurial activity in established firms is quite extensive (see, for example,
Kuratko et al., 2004; Sathe, 2003; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). Based on a review
of literature in the areas of corporate entrepreneurship and organizational innovation,
Schindehutte, Morris, and Kuratko (2000) identified no less than 40 “key triggers” of CE
activity, roughly half of which would be considered “environmental” in nature.
We believe that an entrepreneurial strategic vision is a logical response to the presence
of three often-related environmental conditions: competitive intensity, technological
change, and evolving (fragmenting and/or emerging) product-market domains. Other
environmental conditions could be antecedents to an entrepreneurial strategic vision.
However, given the theoretical and empirical support for their significance, we focus on
these three conditions as the principal external transformational triggers that can, in the
presence of pro-entrepreneurship cognitions among top-level managers, lead to the emer-
gence of an entrepreneurial strategic vision.
Competitive intensity is often associated with relative parity among firms competing
in an industry (Porter, 1980). To break out of parity, firms must create and exploit some
basis for competitive advantage. This frequently translates into an innovation imperative.
That is, firms must pursue technological, product, market, strategic, or business model
innovation, exploiting opportunities to compete on distinct and valued bases, or risk being
pushed out of the market by rivals who do.
Technological change creates a situation where competitive advantage is short-lived.
Barring strong appropriability regimes that protect technological knowledge, firms with
technology-based competitive advantages often must scramble to exploit them before the
forces of technological diffusion erode them (Teece, 1986). Metaphorically speaking,
firms in such environments are on an innovation treadmill. They must continuously
innovate to stay in the game, and they must innovate ahead of their competitors—in ways
or arenas that markets value—to achieve competitive superiority.
The evolutionary forces of fragmentation and emergence in the firm’s product-market
domain(s) are the third external environmental condition that invites the emergence of an
entrepreneurial strategic vision in organizations whose top-level managers harbor pro-
entrepreneurship cognitions. Fragmenting product-market domains contribute to height-
ened environmental heterogeneity, an environmental dimension associated with the
adoption of CE strategies (Miller & Friesen, 1984). In particular, fragmentation creates
opportunities for successful new product introductions. By providing new product-based
value propositions that more closely match the demand characteristics of evolving
markets, firms can position their products to intersect with the evolutionary paths of their
markets. Likewise, market emergence creates innovation opportunities. Such emergence
can be an exogenous evolutionary force to which the firm using a CE strategy can react,
preempting competitors in the pursuit of opportunity (Covin, Slevin, & Heeley, 2000).
Thus, intense competition, rapid technological change, and the conditions of product-
market fragmentation and/or emergence individually and collectively define an environ-
mental context conducive to the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities. While such
opportunities may be recognized and pursued by various levels of management within an
organization, it is essential to the emergence of a CE strategy that top-level managers
January, 2009 29
entrepreneurial phenomena, should also lead to efforts to exploit the entrepreneurial
opportunities emerging from environments with the aforementioned characteristics.
These expectations are formalized in the following propositions:
Proposition 6 (a,b,c): The (a) intensity of competition, (b) rapidity of technological
change, and (c) extensiveness of product-market domain change (as reflected in
product-market fragmentation and emergence rates) are positively related to the
probability that organizational members will recognize entrepreneurial opportunities.
Proposition 7 (a,b,c): The (a) intensity of competition, (b) rapidity of technological
change, and (c) extensiveness of product-market domain change (as reflected in
product-market fragmentation and emergence rates) are more positively related to the
probability that organizational members will recognize entrepreneurial opportunities
when those members have strong pro-entrepreneurship cognitions than when those
members do not have strong pro-entrepreneurship cognitions.
Proposition 8 (a,b,c): The (a) intensity of competition, (b) rapidity of technological
change, and (c) extensiveness of product-market domain change (as reflected in
product-market fragmentation and emergence rates) are positively related to the
probability that organizational members will seek to exploit entrepreneurial opportu-
nities.
Proposition 9 (a,b,c): The (a) intensity of competition, (b) rapidity of technological
change, and (c) extensiveness of product-market domain change (as reflected in
product-market fragmentation and emergence rates) are more positively related to the
probability that organizational members will seek to exploit entrepreneurial opportu-
nities when those members have strong pro-entrepreneurship cognitions than when
those members do not have strong pro-entrepreneurship cognitions.
The Elements
January, 2009 31
entrepreneurship. These norms may, in turn, reinforce organizational members’ commit-
ment to the entrepreneurial strategic vision.
Reward Systems. Organizational systems can have a direct and immediate effect on the
occurrence of entrepreneurial behavior. In particular, whether or not the reward system
encourages risk taking and innovation has been shown to have a strong effect on indi-
viduals’ tendencies to behave in entrepreneurial manners. Kuratko, Montagno, and
Hornsby (1990) empirically identified “reward and resource availability” as a principal
determinant of entrepreneurial behavior by middle- and first-level managers. Similar
results have been reported in subsequent studies (e.g., Hornsby et al., 2002; Hornsby,
Kuratko, & Montagno, 1999; Morris & Jones, 1995).
Reward systems are, of course, part of the organizational architecture top executives
assist in creating. Whether formal or informal, reward systems will likely be influenced by
the vision executives articulate for their organizations. Hence, consistent with the obser-
vations of Miles et al. (2000), entrepreneurial visions are likely to lead to reward systems
that encourage entrepreneurial behaviors.
In summary, the following proposition is offered regarding the anticipated
relationships between entrepreneurial strategic vision and key structural, cultural,
resource, and reward systems-related aspects of a pro-entrepreneurship organizational
architecture:
January, 2009 33
entrepreneurial capability, and (d) extent to which the organizational reward systems
encourage entrepreneurial behavior are positively related to the probability that orga-
nizational members will seek to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities.
The Outcomes
January, 2009 35
Strategic repositioning can also imply the creation of changes to the defining character-
istics of a firm’s competitive space, as would be typical of firms whose strategies represent
novel industry recipes (Spender, 1989) that reflect strategic innovation (Markides, 1998)
or value innovation (Kim & Mauborgne, 1997). Alternatively, and consistent with Covin
and Miles’s (1999) “domain redefinition” form of CE, strategic repositioning can place
firms in entirely new competitive spaces.
The effects of each of these repositioning possibilities will be a disruption of the status
quo within an industry. With such disruption, there are inevitably industry winners and
losers. More importantly, such disruptions prompt causal chains of competitive action
and reaction (Chen, 1996), and industry dynamism and uncertainty will often prompt
firm-level innovation in a positive feedback cycle (Grimm & Smith, 1997; Miller & Friesen,
1984). The realization of strategic repositioning as a result of exploiting entrepreneurial
opportunities thus represents a change to the competitive landscape. Plausible external
responses may include altered levels of competitive intensity, technological change, and
product-market domain evolution. In short, the following proposition is offered:
Proposition 16 (a,b,c): The realization of strategic repositioning by an organization
is related to external environmental changes involving (a) the intensity of competition,
(b) the rapidity of technological change, and (c) product-market domain evolution (as
reflected in product-market fragmentation and emergence rates).
As a final comment on our model, it might be noted that the interpretations and causal
attributions made by an organization’s top managers may be of particular significance to
perpetuating CE strategy. Top managers must believe that positive outcomes for them-
selves and their organizations can be linked back to the presence of CE strategies. In the
absence of such beliefs, and recognizing that a CE strategy begins with top management’s
entrepreneurial cognitions and entrepreneurial strategic vision, top-level managers will
likely choose to de-emphasize entrepreneurship as the defining element of the firm’s
corporate strategy. Thus, the external environmental conditions that provide a congenial
context for the enactment of CE strategies cannot guarantee that such strategies, if
adopted, will be sustained over time (Ireland et al., 2003).
January, 2009 37
balancing the exploitation of current entrepreneurial opportunities with the search for
future entrepreneurial opportunities. Such firms are always near chaos, both strategically
and structurally, but they have the wisdom and discipline to recognize the possibility of
and avoid the type of collapse to which Baden-Fuller and Volberda (1997) refer.
To summarize, the core position we take herein is that CE strategy can be regarded as
a specific type of strategy. To possess such a strategy, firms must significantly display the
three foundational elements of an entrepreneurial strategic vision, a pro-entrepreneurship
organizational architecture, and entrepreneurial processes and behavior as exhibited
throughout the organization. The absence or weakness of any of these elements would
indicate that CE strategy does not exist in a firm.
Nonetheless, the reality or manifestation of CE strategy is not as “clean” as that of
some other corporate strategies. For example, an acquisition strategy is unequivocal in its
existence or lack thereof. That is, the parent firm either acquires all or portions of (as
reflected in partial equity investments) an external business or it does not. However, in the
case of CE strategy, the individual foundational elements can exhibit varying degrees of
intensity and/or organizational pervasiveness. As such, it is possible to conceive of the CE
strategy as identifiable along three separate continua reflecting the aforementioned foun-
dational elements. Positions at the “low” ends of these continua would indicate little or
weak evidence of the element’s existence; positions at the “high” end would indicate
abundant or strong evidence of the element’s existence. The strength of the evidence
needed to claim the presence of a CE strategy is inherently a judgment call on the
observer’s part.
January, 2009 39
integrated with the primary activities associated with successful strategic management
(i.e., exploiting opportunities) if a CE strategy is to be effective. Thus, an effective CE
strategy results from the firm’s ability to take entrepreneurial actions within the context of
a strategic perspective (Hitt et al., 2002; Ireland & Webb, 2007b; Ireland et al., 2001).
Firms considering the possibility of using a CE strategy should carefully analyze their
ability to think strategically when acting entrepreneurially. Strategic thinking influences
the formation of an entrepreneurial strategic vision as well as the making of decisions
regarding the nature of a firm’s pro-entrepreneurship organizational architecture. Entre-
preneurial actions are the bedrock of entrepreneurial processes and behavior. The second
area of guidance our model suggests is the need to effectively manage the firm’s
resources. The success of a CE strategy is more probable when a firm has the skills
required to structure (accumulate and strategically divest), bundle (successfully combine),
and leverage (mobilize and deploy) its resources (Sirmon, Hitt, & Ireland, 2007). Some-
what related to the issue of fit that we examined earlier, a CE strategy’s effectiveness and
efficiency is enhanced when resources are properly managed.
Research Challenges
Greater understanding of CE as a particular type of organizational strategy will
emerge as scholars complete empirical studies examining the phenomenon. The proposi-
tions associated with the current model are possible sources for empirical studies. Effec-
tively dealing with the sample and measurement challenges inherent to this topic will be
critical to obtaining valid insights from empirical work. Two research challenges and
some possible ways in which they might be addressed are identified.
First, researchers must be able to operationally identify samples of firms that exhibit
CE strategies to various degrees (thus minimizing the “restriction of range” problem
within the sample). Of particular difficulty will be identifying firms exhibiting highly
entrepreneurial CE strategies. This will be a challenge because of two of the aforemen-
tioned points: (1) CE strategies may not be robust, and (2) continuously evolving orga-
nizations such as those employing highly entrepreneurial CE strategies may be vulnerable
to collapse. Thus, firms with highly entrepreneurial CE strategies may be few in number.
As a possible solution to the sample identification challenge, researchers are encouraged
to consider three preliminary sample screens: new product introduction rate, new line-of-
business introduction rate (controlling for growth through acquisition), and high rankings
on industry reputational surveys regarding innovation and entrepreneurship-related
matters over an extended period of time. While somewhat blunt metrics for the purpose of
assessing a firm’s innovativeness, it would be unusual for firms with highly entrepreneur-
ial CE strategies to not score high on one or more of these metrics.
Second, researchers must be able to verify the presence and strength of an entrepre-
neurial strategic vision as a defining mind-set shared by the organization’s top managers.
Vision is a phenomenon that is undoubtedly easier to conceptualize than measure. Judg-
ment calls would need to be made regarding such questions as “How should vision
consensus be evaluated?” “Who must share the vision?” and “What constitutes defensible
evidence of a vision’s presence?” As an initial thought concerning the final question,
certainly, pronouncements of a “pro-entrepreneurship” nature by an organization’s execu-
tives to the organization’s membership would be expected if those members were to
understand the vision from the executives’ perspective, as required by a CE strategy. Such
pronouncements could be written or oral, but researchers would need to be able document
them through secondary sources, ideally over a period of several years.
REFERENCES
Alvarez, S.A. & Barney, J.B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty?
Journal of Management, 31(5), 776–793.
Alvarez, S.A. & Barney, J.B. (2008). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 11–26.
Amit, R.H., Brigham, K., & Markman, G.D. (2000). Entrepreneurial management as strategy. In G.D. Meyer
& K.A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge (pp. 83–89).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Amit, R., Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. (1995). Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of
Business Venturing, 10, 95–106.
Antoncic, B. (2003). Risk taking in intrapreneurship: Translating the individual level risk aversion into the
organizational risk taking. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(1), 1–23.
Baden-Fuller, C. & Volberda, H.W. (1997). Strategic renewal: How large complex organizations prepare for
the future. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(2), 95–120.
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17,
99–120.
Barrett, H. & Weinstein, A. (1998). The effect of market orientation and organizational flexibility on corporate
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1), 57–70.
Bartlett, C.A. & Ghoshal, S. (1997). The myth of the general manager: New personal competencies for new
management roles. California Management Review, 40(1), 92–116.
Block, Z. & MacMillan, I.C. (1993). Corporate venturing: Creating new businesses within the firm. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Burgelman, R.A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223–244.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Chen, M.J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of
Management Review, 21, 100–134.
Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology,
6, 1–22.
Collins, J.C. & Porras, J.I. (1996). Building your company’s vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 65–77.
January, 2009 41
Cooper, A.C., Markman, G.D., & Niss, G. (2000). The evolution of the field of entrepreneurship. In G.D.
Meyer & K.A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy (pp. 115–133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Covin, J.G. & Miles, M.P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–64.
Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial
top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217–234.
Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.
Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (2002). The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership. In M.A. Hitt, R.D.
Ireland, S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 309–
327). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Covin, J.G., Ireland, R.D., & Kuratko, D.F. (2003). The exploration and exploitation functions of corporate
venturing. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meetings, Seattle, WA.
Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P., & Heeley, M.B. (2000). Pioneers and followers: Competitive tactics, environment,
and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175–210.
Dess, G.G., Ireland, R.D., Zahra, S.A., Floyd, S.W., Janney, J.J., & Lane, P.J. (2003). Emerging issues in
corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351–378.
Drucker, P.F. (1985). Entrepreneurial strategies. California Management Review, 27(2), 9–25.
Dutta, D.K. & Crossan, M.M. (2005). The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the process
using the 4I organizational learning framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 425–449.
Eckhardt, J.T. & Shane, S.A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29,
333–349.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Brown, S.L., & Neck, H.M. (2000). Competing on the entrepreneurial edge. In G.D. Meyer
& K.A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy (pp. 49–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Floyd, S.W. & Lane, P.J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic
renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154–177.
Floyd, S.W. & Wooldridge, B. (1999). Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate entrepreneurship:
The renewal of organizational capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 123–143.
Garvin, D.A. (2002). A note on corporate venturing and new business creation. Boston: Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Grant, R.M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formula-
tion. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.
Grimm, C.M. & Smith, K.G. (1997). Strategy as action: Industry rivalry and coordination. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western College Publishing.
Guth, W.D. & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special
Issue), 5–15.
Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67(3), 67–76.
Heller, T. (1999). Loosely coupled systems for corporate entrepreneurship: Imagining and managing the
innovation project/host organization interface. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 25–31.
Higdon, L.I. Jr. (2000). Leading innovation. Executive Excellence, 17(8), 15–16.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new
mindset. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Montagno, R.V. (1999). Perception of internal factors for corporate entre-
preneurship: A comparison of Canadian and U.S. managers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2),
9–24.
Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Zahra, S.A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment
for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273.
Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., Kuratko, D.F., & Montagno, R.V. (1993). An interactive model of the
corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 29–37.
Ireland, R.D. & Hitt, M.A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century:
The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 12(1), 43–57.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship actions and
strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49–63.
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., & Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and
its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989.
Ireland, R.D. & Webb, J.W. (2007a). A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research. Journal of
Management, 33(6), 891–927.
Ireland, R.D. & Webb, J.W. (2007b). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through
streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1), 49–59.
Johnson, S. & Van de Ven, A.H. (2002). A framework for entrepreneurial strategy. In M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland,
S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 66–85). Oxford,
UK.: Blackwell Publishers.
Kazanjian, R.K., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M.A. (2002). Implementing strategies for corporate entrepreneurship:
A knowledge-based perspective. In M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic
entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 173–199). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.
Kilmann, R., Saxton, M.J., & Serpa, R. (1985). Gaining control of the corporate culture. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kim, W.C. & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Value innovation: The strategic logic of high growth. Harvard Business
Review, 75(1), 103–113.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Bishop, J.W. (2005). An examination of managers’ entrepreneurial actions
and job satisfaction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(3), 275–291.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Goldsby, M.G. (2004). Sustaining corporate entrepreneurship: A proposed
model of perceived implementation/outcome comparisons at the organizational and individual levels. Inter-
national Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 77–89.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Naffziger, D.W., & Montagno, R.V. (1993). Implement entrepreneurial thinking
in established organizations. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 58(1), 28–39.
January, 2009 43
Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G., & Hornsby, J.S. (2005). A model of middle-level managers’
entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 699–716.
Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., & Hornsby, J.S. (2001). The power of entrepreneurial actions: Insights from
Acordia Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(4), 1–12.
Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., & Hornsby, J.S. (1990). Developing an entrepreneurial assessment instrument
for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue),
49–58.
Lawrence, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and inte-
gration. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
Liedtka, J.M. & Rosenblum, J.W. (1996). Shaping conversations: Making strategy, managing change. Cali-
fornia Management Review, 39(1), 141–157.
Lovas, B. & Ghoshal, S. (2000). Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9),
875–896.
Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurship orientation construct and linking it to
performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172.
Lumpkin, G.T. & Lichtenstein, B.B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition
process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451–472.
McGrath, R.G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of
Management Review, 24(1), 13–30.
McGrath, R.G. & MacMillan, I.C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating
opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Markides, C.C. (1998). Strategic innovation in established companies. Sloan Management Review, 39(3),
31–42.
Merz, G.R. & Sauber, M.H. (1995). Profiles of managerial activities in small firms. Strategic Management
Journal, 16, 551–564.
Meyer, G.D. & Heppard, K.A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miles, G., Heppard, K.A., Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (2000). Entrepreneurial strategies: The critical role
of top management. In G.D. Meyer & K.A. Heppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy (pp. 101–114).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 27,
770–791.
Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1987a). The strategy concept I: Five P’s for strategy. California Management Review, 30(1),
11–24.
Mintzberg, H. (1987b). The strategy concept II: Another look at why organizations need strategies. California
Management Review, 30(1), 25–32.
Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J.A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal,
6, 257–272.
Morris, M.H. & Jones, F.F. (1995). Human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneurship:
An empirical assessment from the USA. International Journal of Human Resource Management 4, 873–896.
Morris, M.H. & Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College
Publishers.
Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F., & Covin, J.G. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. Cincinnati,
OH: Thomson/SouthWestern Publishers.
Murray, J.A. (1984). A concept of entrepreneurial strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 1–13.
Muzyka, D., De Koning, A., & Churchill, N. (1995). On transformation and adaptation: Building the
entrepreneurial corporation. European Management Journal, 13(4), 346–362.
Nelson, R.R. (1991). Why do firms differ and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(Winter
Special Issue), 61–74.
Nelson, R.R. & Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Reynolds, P. (1987). New firms: Societal contribution versus survival potential. Journal of Business Venturing
2, 231–246.
Russell, R.D. (1999). Developing a process model of intrapreneurial systems: A cognitive mapping approach.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 65–84.
Russell, R.D. & Russell, C.J. (1992). An examination of the effects of organizational norms, structure, and
environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of Management 18, 639–656.
Sathe, V. (1988). From surface to deep corporate entrepreneurship. Human Resource Management, 27(4),
389–411.
Sathe, V. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: Top managers and new business creation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schindehutte, M., Morris, M.H., & Kuratko, D.F. (2000). Triggering events, corporate entrepreneurship and
the marketing function. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(2), 18–20.
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Sharma, P. & Chrisman, J.J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–27.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., & Ireland, R.D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create
value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.
Spender, J.C. (1989). Industry recipes: The nature and sources of managerial judgment. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.
January, 2009 45
Stacey, R. (1995). The Science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes.
Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 447–496.
Stopford, J.M. & Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1990). Corporate rejuvenation. Journal of Management Studies,
27(4), 399–415.
Stopford, J.M. & Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management
Journal, 15(7), 521–536.
Teece, D.J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
Tidd, J. & Taurins, S. (1999). Learn or leverage? Strategic diversification and organizational learning through
corporate ventures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8(2), 122–129.
Timmons, J.A. (1999). New venture creation (5th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Volberda, H.W. (1996). Towards the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments.
Organization Science, 7(4), 359–374.
Weick, K.E. & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zahra, S.A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study.
Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259–285.
Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D.F., & Kuratko, D.F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level
entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45–65.
Zahra, S.A., Nielsen, A.P., & Bogner, W.C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence
development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 169–189.
R. Duane Ireland is a Distinguished Professor and holds the Foreman R. and Ruby S. Bennett Chair in
Business in the Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Jeffrey G. Covin is the Samuel and Pauline Glaubinger Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Kelley School of
Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Donald F. Kuratko is the Jack M. Gill Chair of Entrepreneurship, Professor of Entrepreneurship & Executive
Director of the Johnson Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana.
The guest editors acknowledge that a prior version of this paper was presented at the Max Planck Ringberg
Entrepreneurship Conference on Strategic Entrepreneurship in June 2007. The authors wish to thank our
discussant, Anne Huff, and the other conference attendees for their helpful feedback. Two anonymous
reviewers provided invaluable guidance in the final development of this manuscript.